On May 6, 5:34*am, "Juan R." González-Álvarez
wrote:
Koobee Wublee wrote on Mon, 05 May 2008 23:23:02 -0700:

Therefore, Mike is correct on this one. *Both Professor Draper and Mr.
Bielawski are very wrong. *It is time for both gentlemen to propose a
graceful retreat.

Mike is correct. GR does not reduce to NG in the weak field limit.

Although I have not researched the issue extensively as you have done,
my understanding is that one has to assume a specific form of the
metric to make the linearized equations converge to NG because there
are virtually infinite solutions. Maybe you may want to corerct me
here if I am wrong.

The form of the metric chosen though, implies NG at the weak field
limit. Then to come back and assert that GR converges to NG, is a
petitio principii, the worse of all falalcies but one found in many
places in both SR and GR.

It is also found in NM books on some subjects but this is beyond the
subject for now.

Mike






During the thread on Newtonian limit difficulties of GR I have discussed
this point with an expert on curved spacetime equations of motion, Eric
Poisson [1].

Eric confirms my finding that a = 0 in the linear regime of GR:

(\blockquote
*Since the energy-momentum tensor is already of first-order, in the
*linearized theory the conservation equations must be written down with
*the Minkowski metric, and this implies that the matter cannot have
*gravitational interactions. Or as you point out, particles would have
*to move on straight lines.
)

Textbooks and lecture notes take the weak field limit in a wrong way.
E.g. Carroll takes the fake limit

Z[a] = - L[\Gamma] Z[v v]

instead the correct one

L[a] = - L[\Gamma v v] = - L[\Gamma] Z[v v]

Prof. Carlip adds a couple of more mistakes and falsifications to his
'derivation'.

Indeed GR has not Newtonian limit in weak field or not.

[1] *http://relativity.livingreviews.org/...es/lrr-2004-6/

--http://canonicalscience.org/en/miscellaneouszone/guidelines.txt